India, China send probes out of this world

Probes now in transfer orbits to the Moon (China) and Mars (India).

Over the weekend, two separate pieces of hardware left Earth for other worlds. India's Mars Orbiter, its first mission to another planet, was placed into a Mars transfer orbit after several weeks of maneuvers near Earth. Separately, China's first lunar lander, the Chang'e 3, was both launched and sent into a Moon transfer orbit.

The Mars Orbiter was launched in early November and placed in Earth orbit. Over the last few weeks, a series of boosts stretched its orbit into a highly elliptical one. Finally, over the weekend, a final boost allowed the probe to escape Earth's gravity and enter a heliocentric orbit that's elliptical enough to take it out to Mars. Assuming that future course corrections go off without a hitch, the Mars Orbiter will arrive at the red planet in September 2014. The probe has already passed beyond the orbit of the Moon. It should arrive less than two months after the American MAVEN mission, which was launched later but on a more powerful rocket that sent it directly on its way to Mars.

Also over the weekend, China launched an ambitious mission to the Moon. The Chang'e 3 is China's first attempt at landing hardware on a different body. Assuming that the probe comes down gently, it will examine the lunar surface and interior with its own instruments but also release Yutu (Jade Rabbit), a rover that can examine areas beyond the immediate landing site. Chang'e 3 has already been boosted into a lunar transfer orbit and separated from its boost stages.

So 2 of the largest countries in the world - each with significant portions of their populations under the poverty line are spending a shitload of cash to send junk into space instead of feeding their people.

Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger's response to a similar question is as true for the Chinese and Indian space programs today as it was for NASA in 1970.

So 2 of the largest countries in the world - each with significant portions of their populations under the poverty line are spending a shitload of cash to send junk into space instead of feeding their people.

As xwindowsjunkie pointed out, space exploration has a pretty high ROI. It's not like they bought a rover off amazon and sent it to the moon -- the rover has to be built, technology developed, rockets, landing pad, etc. etc. Those places have to be built, manned and maintained. All of that should require more jobs and, hopefully, higher paying ones.

Space exploration is definitely more of a "teach a man to fish" type investment than "give a man a fish." I'm not sure if it scales the same way for communism, but in capitalism it can lead to some great benefits.

EDIT: The letter DanNeely linked to definitely answers the question as well. I hadn't read it before, but it's worth the read. It's more about the advantage of the technological advances than the short term gains in employment, but both short term and long term benefits are pretty huge.

Space technology has the best ROI of anything they could spend our tax dollars on.

Out of interest do you have any sources for that?

It stands to reason; in our own solar system, well within reach, are countless bodies likely with a fair amount of raw resources that we could draw upon without ripping them out of the ground or poisoning the environment to get at located out in the asteroid belt. Can you imagine the benefits of having enough rare earths (assuming they're out there in sufficient quantities) for any device we'd care to build, and an environment where even the most noxious processing can take place without risk of contaminating ground water, air, or habitable land?

An unbelievable level of advancement over the entire world in Aerospace, pissed away in less than a generation due to neglect.

*slow clap*

How so? We have continual improvements in aerospace - there has been no neglect or stagnation. We're better off than we were 60 years ago, by far.

I think he is referring to the shuttering of the US manned space program and the continual erosion of NASAs budget. At this point everything we have to show for those 60 years is falling apart and being taken over by private industry.

Space technology has the best ROI of anything they could spend our tax dollars on.

Out of interest do you have any sources for that?

It stands to reason; in our own solar system, well within reach, are countless bodies likely with a fair amount of raw resources that we could draw upon without ripping them out of the ground or poisoning the environment to get at located out in the asteroid belt. Can you imagine the benefits of having enough rare earths (assuming they're out there in sufficient quantities) for any device we'd care to build, and an environment where even the most noxious processing can take place without risk of contaminating ground water, air, or habitable land?

Except the ROI so far has been based upon the results of space exploration, not space exploitation.

I think he is referring to the shuttering of the US manned space program and the continual erosion of NASAs budget. At this point everything we have to show for those 60 years is falling apart and being taken over by private industry.

NASA should strictly be about exploration, their budget shrinking is in line with those goals. They aren't supporting a space shuttle anymore. They are working on a vehicle for LEO, it'll be a few more years before we have that again. The shuttle was expensive for what it did and was hardly reusable due to how many components had to be replaced before each flight.

I don't see how privatization of the space industry is a bad thing - people here are complaining about congress' shortsightedness w.r.t space - the best way to fix that is to get around having to deal with them at all!

An unbelievable level of advancement over the entire world in Aerospace, pissed away in less than a generation due to neglect.

*slow clap*

How so? We have continual improvements in aerospace - there has been no neglect or stagnation. We're better off than we were 60 years ago, by far.

and if we kept at it with the same level of support as we did in the '80s & '90s we probably would have had manned missions to mars by now.

no slight to china or india on this, my second greatest fear with space exploration may be hostile / irresponsible nations establishing installations on other planets before we can but my first greatest fear is the US establishing a monopoly on space colonization.

Space technology has the best ROI of anything they could spend our tax dollars on.

Out of interest do you have any sources for that?

It stands to reason; in our own solar system, well within reach, are countless bodies likely with a fair amount of raw resources that we could draw upon without ripping them out of the ground or poisoning the environment to get at located out in the asteroid belt. Can you imagine the benefits of having enough rare earths (assuming they're out there in sufficient quantities) for any device we'd care to build, and an environment where even the most noxious processing can take place without risk of contaminating ground water, air, or habitable land?

The initial costs will be the most likely reason why it won't ever happen. I personally don't think Human society will get beyond the petty daily life to think forward enough to preserve our future. All the investment it would take to make space mining/harvesting possible wouldn't see returns for generations (mostly because of the transportation costs). There's too much greed to imagine investments you can't return on in the investor's lifespan. We're all much too selfish.

Space technology has the best ROI of anything they could spend our tax dollars on.

Out of interest do you have any sources for that?

It stands to reason; in our own solar system, well within reach, are countless bodies likely with a fair amount of raw resources that we could draw upon without ripping them out of the ground or poisoning the environment to get at located out in the asteroid belt. Can you imagine the benefits of having enough rare earths (assuming they're out there in sufficient quantities) for any device we'd care to build, and an environment where even the most noxious processing can take place without risk of contaminating ground water, air, or habitable land?

The initial costs will be the most likely reason why it won't ever happen. I personally don't think Human society will get beyond the petty daily life to think forward enough to preserve our future. All the investment it would take to make space mining/harvesting possible wouldn't see returns for generations (mostly because of the transportation costs). There's too much greed to imagine investments you can't return on in the investor's lifespan. We're all much too selfish.

Space technology has the best ROI of anything they could spend our tax dollars on.

Out of interest do you have any sources for that?

It stands to reason; in our own solar system, well within reach, are countless bodies likely with a fair amount of raw resources that we could draw upon without ripping them out of the ground or poisoning the environment to get at located out in the asteroid belt. Can you imagine the benefits of having enough rare earths (assuming they're out there in sufficient quantities) for any device we'd care to build, and an environment where even the most noxious processing can take place without risk of contaminating ground water, air, or habitable land?

The initial costs will be the most likely reason why it won't ever happen. I personally don't think Human society will get beyond the petty daily life to think forward enough to preserve our future. All the investment it would take to make space mining/harvesting possible wouldn't see returns for generations (mostly because of the transportation costs). There's too much greed to imagine investments you can't return on in the investor's lifespan. We're all much too selfish.

Meh. It'll happen. I doubt, though, that it'll happen in our, our children's, or our grandchildren's lifetime, however. Eventually, it *will* become cheaper to extract materials from asteroids and comets than it will to recycle or reclaim materials from used components. The only question then will be, who has invested enough into space exploration to be able to make the trip at the cheapest cost to gain the initial and oh-so-crucial stake out there, to get and maintain control of the new supply.

I think he is referring to the shuttering of the US manned space program and the continual erosion of NASAs budget. At this point everything we have to show for those 60 years is falling apart and being taken over by private industry.

NASA should strictly be about exploration, their budget shrinking is in line with those goals. They aren't supporting a space shuttle anymore. They are working on a vehicle for LEO, it'll be a few more years before we have that again. The shuttle was expensive for what it did and was hardly reusable due to how many components had to be replaced before each flight.

I don't see how privatization of the space industry is a bad thing - people here are complaining about congress' shortsightedness w.r.t space - the best way to fix that is to get around having to deal with them at all!

So 2 of the largest countries in the world - each with significant portions of their populations under the poverty line are spending a shitload of cash to send junk into space instead of feeding their people.

... just like the USA likes to spend away billions in waging wars based on lies, more lies and damned lies. At least the Indians achieved their mission at a much lower cost than NASA.

So 2 of the largest countries in the world - each with significant portions of their populations under the poverty line are spending a shitload of cash to send junk into space instead of feeding their people.

Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger's response to a similar question is as true for the Chinese and Indian space programs today as it was for NASA in 1970.

Can a nun say "bullshit"?Anyway, not that I think that the US is the source of all things just but, at that time, its citizens were in general fed, housed, and educated, which you just cannot say about india. In their current situation, someone needs to be burned alive in a pire for this. It is all very well to participate in scientific programs, but I am sure that turning down on the ego trip and participating in international projects would have had great scientific returns while leaving a pile of dough to buy food and vaccines for their own people. But then, those who do the budget do not consider the needy their own.

The initial costs will be the most likely reason why it won't ever happen. I personally don't think Human society will get beyond the petty daily life to think forward enough to preserve our future. All the investment it would take to make space mining/harvesting possible wouldn't see returns for generations (mostly because of the transportation costs). There's too much greed to imagine investments you can't return on in the investor's lifespan. We're all much too selfish.

My feeling is that, if given enough medical advances, we can get to a point where people can expect a (say) 400-500 year lifespan (at the quality of life of a present 20-40 year old). At that point, we might start to see a greater societal interest in extraterrestrial colonization and exploration. If a round trip to Mars takes 10 years, then I'd spend about an eighth of my life getting there and back - someone with another 300 years to live might see it as a temporary diversion, like how I'd see a boat trip to Australia.

I can only hope that with other countries getting into the space game, we in the U.S. will put some renewed effort into exploring space as well.

You'd think. But NASA's budget keeps getting cut or stays flat. Right now, they're trying to figure out what planetary science to CUT instead of doing more research that would benefit us all scientifically, culturally, artistically, and spiritually.

Space technology has the best ROI of anything they could spend our tax dollars on.

Out of interest do you have any sources for that?

It stands to reason; in our own solar system, well within reach, are countless bodies likely with a fair amount of raw resources that we could draw upon without ripping them out of the ground or poisoning the environment to get at located out in the asteroid belt. Can you imagine the benefits of having enough rare earths (assuming they're out there in sufficient quantities) for any device we'd care to build, and an environment where even the most noxious processing can take place without risk of contaminating ground water, air, or habitable land?

The initial costs will be the most likely reason why it won't ever happen. I personally don't think Human society will get beyond the petty daily life to think forward enough to preserve our future. All the investment it would take to make space mining/harvesting possible wouldn't see returns for generations (mostly because of the transportation costs). There's too much greed to imagine investments you can't return on in the investor's lifespan. We're all much too selfish.

No the Weyland-Yutani Corporation will make space mining profitable.

How? How are you going to convince their board to look beyond "next quarter" or "next fiscal year" when the human race seems to have an aversion to long-term thinking these days? If you're going to do space mining, you need to figure out how to do it, you need launch vehicles, you need spacecraft, you need a lot of build-up missions (think the Gemini program as an example) to learn how, and only then can you even think about trying to launch your profit-making missions that are actually going to go to the asteroids or to other planets.

They'll look at your plan and their heads will explode when the profits don't show up for decades and they'll say "Nope, costs too much and I'm too stupid to realize that long-term thinking works out better than short-term. Give me something I can make a profit on NOW."

Space technology has the best ROI of anything they could spend our tax dollars on.

Out of interest do you have any sources for that?

It stands to reason; in our own solar system, well within reach, are countless bodies likely with a fair amount of raw resources that we could draw upon without ripping them out of the ground or poisoning the environment to get at located out in the asteroid belt. Can you imagine the benefits of having enough rare earths (assuming they're out there in sufficient quantities) for any device we'd care to build, and an environment where even the most noxious processing can take place without risk of contaminating ground water, air, or habitable land?

The initial costs will be the most likely reason why it won't ever happen. I personally don't think Human society will get beyond the petty daily life to think forward enough to preserve our future. All the investment it would take to make space mining/harvesting possible wouldn't see returns for generations (mostly because of the transportation costs). There's too much greed to imagine investments you can't return on in the investor's lifespan. We're all much too selfish.

No the Weyland-Yutani Corporation will make space mining profitable.

How? How are you going to convince their board to look beyond "next quarter" or "next fiscal year" when the human race seems to have an aversion to long-term thinking these days? If you're going to do space mining, you need to figure out how to do it, you need launch vehicles, you need spacecraft, you need a lot of build-up missions (think the Gemini program as an example) to learn how, and only then can you even think about trying to launch your profit-making missions that are actually going to go to the asteroids or to other planets.

They'll look at your plan and their heads will explode when the profits don't show up for decades and they'll say "Nope, costs too much and I'm too stupid to realize that long-term thinking works out better than short-term. Give me something I can make a profit on NOW."

Sorry, Alien reference.

In all seriousness companies like Virgin Galactic and SpaceX are setting the framework for this to be profitable. You don't just say "I'm going to build a ship to mine that asteroid". Instead you work on developing the technology to make space exploration faster, cheaper, and easier. They are playing the long game right now. There is no guarantee that the billions they are spending will actually amount to anything so why are they spending that money?

Space technology has the best ROI of anything they could spend our tax dollars on.

Out of interest do you have any sources for that?

It stands to reason; in our own solar system, well within reach, are countless bodies likely with a fair amount of raw resources that we could draw upon without ripping them out of the ground or poisoning the environment to get at located out in the asteroid belt. Can you imagine the benefits of having enough rare earths (assuming they're out there in sufficient quantities) for any device we'd care to build, and an environment where even the most noxious processing can take place without risk of contaminating ground water, air, or habitable land?

The initial costs will be the most likely reason why it won't ever happen. I personally don't think Human society will get beyond the petty daily life to think forward enough to preserve our future. All the investment it would take to make space mining/harvesting possible wouldn't see returns for generations (mostly because of the transportation costs). There's too much greed to imagine investments you can't return on in the investor's lifespan. We're all much too selfish.

No the Weyland-Yutani Corporation will make space mining profitable.

How? How are you going to convince their board to look beyond "next quarter" or "next fiscal year" when the human race seems to have an aversion to long-term thinking these days? If you're going to do space mining, you need to figure out how to do it, you need launch vehicles, you need spacecraft, you need a lot of build-up missions (think the Gemini program as an example) to learn how, and only then can you even think about trying to launch your profit-making missions that are actually going to go to the asteroids or to other planets.

They'll look at your plan and their heads will explode when the profits don't show up for decades and they'll say "Nope, costs too much and I'm too stupid to realize that long-term thinking works out better than short-term. Give me something I can make a profit on NOW."

Dude, Weyland Corp was founded on October 11, 2012. We don't know much about their budget yet. However, someone is going to nuke it from orbit, I bet.

So 2 of the largest countries in the world - each with significant portions of their populations under the poverty line are spending a shitload of cash to send junk into space instead of feeding their people.

You mean four countries - US and Russia as a significant portion of the populations are under the poverty line